Datol v. Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The Coalition of Associations of Senior Citizens in the Philippines, Inc. (SENIOR CITIZENS) was accredited as a party-list organization in 2007. After participating in the 2007 and 2010 elections, it secured two seats in the House of Representatives, occupied by its first nominee, Godofredo V. Arquiza, and its second nominee, David L. Kho. Internal disputes arose within the party, leading to a split between two factions: one led by Rep. Arquiza and the other by Francisco G. Datol, Jr., the organization's third nominee. These factions engaged in a rivalry for leadership and control of the party. 2. Procedural History: The dispute escalated when Rep. Arquiza informed the COMELEC of Rep. Kho's resignation, effective December 31, 2011, and sought to replace him with the fourth nominee, Remedios D. Arquiza. This petition, docketed as E.M. No. 12-040, was dismissed by the COMELEC En Banc on June 27, 2012, which ruled that the resignation was part of a term-sharing agreement and thus void as against public policy, creating no vacancy. Concurrently, the COMELEC reviewed the registration of party-list organizations, including SENIOR CITIZENS, which had filed manifestations of intent to participate in the 2013 elections. On December 4, 2012, the COMELEC En Banc, by a vote of 4-3, ordered the cancellation of SENIOR CITIZENS' registration, citing the term-sharing agreement as a violation of the Constitution and election laws. This decision was reiterated in an Omnibus Resolution on May 10, 2013, which disqualified SENIOR CITIZENS from participating in the 2013 elections. 3. The Petition: Two rival factions of SENIOR CITIZENS, the Arquiza Group and the Datol Group, filed separate petitions for certiorari with the Supreme Court, challenging the COMELEC's Omnibus Resolution dated May 10, 2013. Both petitions argued that the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion by cancelling the registration and disqualifying SENIOR CITIZENS without due process, as they were not adequately notified that the term-sharing agreement would be a basis for cancellation. They also contended that the term-sharing agreement, even if it existed, was not implemented and therefore should not be a ground for disqualification, especially since COMELEC Resolution No. 9366, which explicitly prohibited term-sharing, was promulgated after the agreement was made and should not be applied retroactively. The petitions sought to set aside the COMELEC's resolution and to have SENIOR CITIZENS proclaimed as a winning party-list organization.
Issue(s)
Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it added a ground (violation of public policy) for cancellation of registration not explicitly provided under Section 6 of Republic Act No. 7941. Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it cancelled the petitioner's certificate of registration/accreditation without due process of law. Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it concluded that the petitioner violated public policy on term-sharing. Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it ordered the automatic review by the En Banc of the registration/accreditation granted by its Division, notwithstanding the constitutional provision that the En Banc can only review decisions of the Division upon filing of a motion for reconsideration. Whether the COMELEC En Banc Resolution of May 10, 2013 is invalid for being contrary to law and having been issued without or in excess of jurisdiction or in grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction; AND Whether the COMELEC En Banc Resolution of May 24, 2013 is invalid for being contrary to law and having been issued without or in excess of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. Whether the National Board of Canvassers’ (NBOC) Resolution No. 0006-13 of May 24, 2013 is invalid for being contrary to law and having been issued without or in excess of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction; AND Whether NBOC Resolution No. 0008-13 of May 28, 2013 is invalid for being contrary to law and having been issued without or in excess of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. What is the cardinal rule in interpreting laws/rules on qualifications and disqualifications of the candidates after the election where they have received the winning number of votes? May the COMELEC En Banc Resolutions of May 10 and 24, 2013 and NBOC Resolutions of May 24 and 28, 2013 be annulled and set aside? Whether the internal dispute between the rival factions of SENIOR CITIZENS was an issue to be resolved in the present petitions. Whether the COMELEC En Banc committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the petitions, reversed and set aside the COMELEC En Banc's Omnibus Resolution dated May 10, 2013, and ordered the COMELEC to proclaim SENIOR CITIZENS as a winning party-list organization. Dispositive Portion: WHEREFORE, the Court hereby rules that: (1) The Extremely Very Urgent Petition for Certiorari (With Prayer for the Forthwith Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order [TRO] and/or Status Quo Ante Order [SQAO]) in G.R. Nos. 206844-45 and the Very Urgent Petition for Certiorari (With Application for a Temporary Restraining Order and Writ of Preliminary Injunction) in G.R. No. 206982 are GRANTED; (2) The Omnibus Resolution dated May 10, 2013 of the Commission on Elections En Banc in SPP No. 12-157 (PLM) and SPP No. 12-191 (PLM) is REVERSED and SET ASIDE insofar as Coalition of Associations of Senior Citizens in the Philippines, Inc. is concerned; and (3) The Commission on Elections En Banc is ORDERED to PROCLAIM the Coalition of Associations of Senior Citizens in the Philippines, Inc. as one of the winning party-list organizations during the May 13, 2013 elections with the number of seats it may be entitled to based on the total number of votes it garnered during the said elections. No costs.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the COMELEC adding a ground for cancellation: The Court held that the COMELEC erred in cancelling the registration and accreditation of SENIOR CITIZENS solely on the ground of the term-sharing agreement because the agreement was not implemented. Since the agreement was not carried out, there was no actual violation of election laws, rules, or regulations. Therefore, penalizing SENIOR CITIZENS for an unimplemented agreement was deemed unfair and arbitrary. On the issue of Due Process: The Court found that the COMELEC committed a due process violation by cancelling the registration of SENIOR CITIZENS without apprising the organization that the term-sharing agreement would be a material consideration for disqualification. This deprived SENIOR CITIZENS of the opportunity to explain its side or present evidence specifically on this issue. Due process requires not only an opportunity to be heard but also that the party be informed of the charges or issues against it. On the Prohibition on Term-Sharing: The Court held that the COMELEC erred in cancelling the registration and accreditation of SENIOR CITIZENS solely on the ground of the term-sharing agreement because the agreement was not implemented. On Retroactivity of COMELEC Resolution No. 9366: While COMELEC Resolution No. 9366, which explicitly prohibited term-sharing, was promulgated in February 2012, after the term-sharing agreement was executed in 2010, the Court found that the argument of non-retroactivity was not the primary basis for its ruling. The Court acknowledged that laws generally operate prospectively unless otherwise provided. However, it clarified that a party-list organization does not possess a vested right to its registration. Nevertheless, the Court ultimately found that the cancellation was improper because the agreement was not implemented, rendering the issue of retroactivity moot in this specific instance. On the validity of the COMELEC En Banc Resolutions of May 10 and 24, 2013: The Court concluded that the COMELEC En Banc committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. This conclusion was based on the procedural due process violations and the lack of a valid legal ground for disqualification, as the term-sharing agreement was not implemented. The COMELEC's actions were deemed arbitrary and capricious, leading to the reversal of its resolution. On the validity of the NBOC Resolutions: The Court did not explicitly address the validity of the NBOC resolutions separately from the COMELEC En Banc resolutions in the provided text. The ruling focused on the COMELEC's grave abuse of discretion. On the cardinal rule in interpreting laws/rules on qualifications and disqualifications of the candidates: The provided text does not contain information about the cardinal rule in interpreting laws/rules on qualifications and disqualifications of the candidates after the election where they have received the winning number of votes. On whether the COMELEC En Banc Resolutions of May 10 and 24, 2013 and NBOC Resolutions of May 24 and 28, 2013 be annulled and set aside: The Court's conclusion that the COMELEC En Banc committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, based on procedural due process violations and the lack of a valid legal ground for disqualification, implies that the resolutions should be annulled and set aside. On the Dispute Between Rival Factions: The Court explicitly stated that the internal dispute between the rival factions of SENIOR CITIZENS was not an issue to be resolved in the present petitions. Such disputes should be threshed out in separate proceedings before the proper tribunal. On Grave Abuse of Discretion: The Court concluded that the COMELEC En Banc committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. This conclusion was based on the procedural due process violations and the lack of a valid legal ground for disqualification, as the term-sharing agreement was not implemented. The COMELEC's actions were deemed arbitrary and capricious, leading to the reversal of its resolution.
Main Doctrine
The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it cancelled the registration and accreditation of a party-list organization solely on the ground of a term-sharing agreement among its nominees, especially when such agreement was not implemented and the organization was not afforded due process by being apprised that this would be a basis for disqualification.